Jump to content

What point levels and why?


phydaux

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

I see a lot of people dont like Deadly Blow and Combat Luck. They work ok for certain builds as long as you keep the power levels in check.

 

Deadly blow should just be +1 DC per level up to a max of +3DC (+1d6k) and Combat Luck (or whatever) should be limited to +3 resistant defense. That way if it stacks with armor it will not be overwhelming.

 

Keep bonuses from Talents/Feats low....+1 to +3 in most cases. When they stack with skill levels and situational bonuses, the end result can still be impressive in a Heroic fashion without being overwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to like above zero to a respectable level as a starting point. I pretty early got burnt on epic level. I find that the meaning of the monsters gets pretty badly warped at exactly the level where the characters can easily kill a dragon. I suspect it's my own genre expectations, there's really not a lot of the genre that goes that way outside of gaming.

 

I don't care for zero as a start unless everyone is on board with a fair percentage of the party dying, because they probably will, super low points don't have a lot of skills or powers to mitigate their dying, and if they just get to automatically live, well, we've all done that a thousand times, need we repeat?

 

That said, to relate this to D&D, playability, I think about sixth level was the sweet spot where game play seemed to work best in keeping with the genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Deadly Blow because it has zero rational sense and no logical basis other than "dude it was in D&D!"

It works well for certain power builds that exist outside the realm of Martial Arts. Its just that its initial build and presentation when it debuted in the 5th edition was poor and needed work. It wasnt well balanced, which is why some people didnt like it from the jump.

 

I have neen using Feat-like Talents since the mid-4th edition days, so I had years of experience in balancing such builds when the concept was introduced in 5th edition. It just requires a bit of thought and tweaking the concept to fit into your own game. Never and I mean NEVER introduce that kind of stuff into your game straight out of the book without extensive playtesting to better fit it to your games power level.

 

For me, its good for simulating such things as a Theif's backstab (requires a stealt roll), a Paladin's Holy Strike (requires a Faith roll, costs endurance) or a "bane" type power where a character does more damage to a specific monster type (only vs Dragons etc). Nothing wrong with the concept, or the build as long as it is kept in check and balanced against other things in the setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Goodwin hits the nail on the head. I too fiund assumptions play a bigger role than raw stats. I still remember when in this board someone dared mention he was going to play a fantasy game using suoerheroic rules. Iirc a few actually stated that you couldn't do that!

That was extraordinarily common in the 4th edition days. The Fantasy Hero book back then actually stated that Fantasy games should be Heroic level or less and that superheroic levels of play were "inappropriate" to the genre.

 

It also said that except in the case of spells, that powers were "not allowed" in fantasy games and that even in the case of spells, that power frameworks such as Multipower or VPP were inappropriate (there's that word again).

 

Of course this created an atmosphere where those few of us who completely ignored those "suggestions" in the Fantasy Hero book, got piled on and told we were playing wrong when we presented various builds that were "illegal" according to FH4.

 

I think things finally started to turn around once The Ultimate Martial Artist released and people saw exactly what interesting theme-related builds could result when you removed the artificial limiters placed on the system. Also, I presented a solution to Turn Undead on the message boards back then that made perfect sense mechanically and while some posters said they didnt like it, most said that mechanically it fit the system quite well and those who playtested it said it worked well. It is now pretty much the default method for Turn Undead in the game. Things started to turn around after that and then of course the release of the 5th edition when those old barriers got completely blown to oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad we were not on the boards in those days. Our group was playing Fantasy Hero and Fantasy Hero 2 with characters that also had those nasty power frameworks. It perfectly represented the magic system my game Master wanted. Heck he even have all my spells a Focus because I had to prepare them from a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was extraordinarily common in the 4th edition days. The Fantasy Hero book back then actually stated that Fantasy games should be Heroic level or less and that superheroic levels of play were "inappropriate" to the genre.

 

It also said that except in the case of spells, that powers were "not allowed" in fantasy games and that even in the case of spells, that power frameworks such as Multipower or VPP were inappropriate (there's that word again).

 

Of course this created an atmosphere where those few of us who completely ignored those "suggestions" in the Fantasy Hero book, got piled on and told we were playing wrong when we presented various builds that were "illegal" according to FH4.

 

I think things finally started to turn around once The Ultimate Martial Artist released and people saw exactly what interesting theme-related builds could result when you removed the artificial limiters placed on the system. Also, I presented a solution to Turn Undead on the message boards back then that made perfect sense mechanically and while some posters said they didnt like it, most said that mechanically it fit the system quite well and those who playtested it said it worked well. It is now pretty much the default method for Turn Undead in the game. Things started to turn around after that and then of course the release of the 5th edition when those old barriers got completely blown to oblivion.

 

Yes, you and I were antagonists in those discussions.  I was coming from first edition Fantasy Hero, where the play style was pretty specific, and FH for 4th edition was more or less trying to continue the style.  I couldn't imagine why you'd want to play what were essentially superheroes in a heroic genre.  I honestly thought that the default mode of play was what it said in the book; that's what I was interested in, and still am.  That's really why I wrote my Low Heroic guidelines.  (Edited to add:  If it matters, I don't feel the same way; I totally get it that there are lots of different play styles.  If you're having fun, it's all good.)

 

That said, I still wish I could find people running the kinds of games I want to play in, but I hope there are no hard feelings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you and I were antagonists in those discussions. I was coming from first edition Fantasy Hero, where the play style was pretty specific, and FH for 4th edition was more or less trying to continue the style. I couldn't imagine why you'd want to play what were essentially superheroes in a heroic genre. I honestly thought that the default mode of play was what it said in the book; that's what I was interested in, and still am. That's really why I wrote my Low Heroic guidelines. (Edited to add: If it matters, I don't feel the same way; I totally get it that there are lots of different play styles. If you're having fun, it's all good.)

 

That said, I still wish I could find people running the kinds of games I want to play in, but I hope there are no hard feelings.

There were never any hard feelings. The discussions were helpful for working through both reasoning and balance factors depending on the type of play the builds were intended for.

 

Mainly it was for simulation of certain cinematic tropes found in various genres that differed from the norm, such as Anime of Wuxia. To get the feel of those tropes right. Stepping outside the bounds of the stereotypical Tolkien fantasy mold that Fantasy Hero was based upon (heck evej certain eras of Tolkien couldnt be done "by the book" back then because the Silmarrilion most assuredly goes into Superheroic territory with many of its tales and characters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you and I were antagonists in those discussions.  I was coming from first edition Fantasy Hero, where the play style was pretty specific, and FH for 4th edition was more or less trying to continue the style.  I couldn't imagine why you'd want to play what were essentially superheroes in a heroic genre.  I honestly thought that the default mode of play was what it said in the book; that's what I was interested in, and still am.  That's really why I wrote my Low Heroic guidelines.  (Edited to add:  If it matters, I don't feel the same way; I totally get it that there are lots of different play styles.  If you're having fun, it's all good.)

 

That said, I still wish I could find people running the kinds of games I want to play in, but I hope there are no hard feelings. 

Just read your guidelines earlier today, nice, practical, and succinct. I found it helpful.

 

That said, I have no cash to give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Deadly Blow because it has zero rational sense and no logical basis other than "dude it was in D&D!"

 

Plus, Hero already has something equivalent to Power Attack: Offensive Strike. All Power Attack does is trade to hit bonus for a damage bonus. Offensive Strike or any other combat maneuver that trades OVC for some damage is already a good enough substitute. I never understood the need to reinvent the wheel other than conflating Hero Talents with 3E D&D Feats for the sake of appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, Hero already has something equivalent to Power Attack: Offensive Strike. All Power Attack does is trade to hit bonus for a damage bonus. Offensive Strike or any other combat maneuver that trades OVC for some damage is already a good enough substitute. I never understood the need to reinvent the wheel other than conflating Hero Talents with 3E D&D Feats for the sake of appearance.

You know with Hero there are always a dozen different ways to do the same thing. The different approaches arent better or worse, just different. And there may be some minor mechanical differences which necessitates choosing one method over another for simulation purposes. (Such as the difference of Offensive Strike being mere additive damage vs Deadly Blow counting as Base damage)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know with Hero there are always a dozen different ways to do the same thing. The different approaches arent better or worse, just different. And there may be some minor mechanical differences which necessitates choosing one method over another for simulation purposes. (Such as the difference of Offensive Strike being mere additive damage vs Deadly Blow counting as Base damage)

 

I think a lot of Hero Martial (or even standard) maneuvers can stand in well for the combat feats. I suppose my point was just that it's a bit simpler to use what's already built-in, than to create a problematic construct that can be a bit of a newbie trap. Increasing base damage would seem to be one of those things that can cause problems, and since D&D 3rd doesn't really have any similar mechanical distinction (at least that I can think of at the moment), it makes more sense to me to use additive damage from martial maneuvers or even skill levels. I think it would make for a bit easier transition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real determiner of "power level" in Hero is less the actual total points of the characters and more the limits of power or maximum characteristic levels.

 

If you want to simulate a zero to hero style game, enforce strict characteristic and skill limits at the start of the game, then at certain points in the story of the campaign, slightly increase those limits. Do this around 3 to 5 times depending on the desired result and you'll see a lot of growth from the characters. Just make sure you increase the challenges appropriately when the limits are increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real determiner of "power level" in Hero is less the actual total points of the characters and more the limits of power or maximum characteristic levels.

 

If you want to simulate a zero to hero style game, enforce strict characteristic and skill limits at the start of the game, then at certain points in the story of the campaign, slightly increase those limits. Do this around 3 to 5 times depending on the desired result and you'll see a lot of growth from the characters. Just make sure you increase the challenges appropriately when the limits are increased.

 

It can also be done in a semi-organic way. When the majority of the characters have reached the pinnacle of the existing campaign caps, move the goal post.

 

As to the rest.....

 

I, for one, like low-powered games. I don't think the number of points necessarily reflects how competent a character is. Rather, there are other factors to consider. If the vast majority of the NPCs are "standard" Normal characters and the PCs have an additional 25 points, that makes them very competent to the average "Joe on the Street." I also like to see progression in both the way the character is played and the abilities available to the character. I tend to dislike straight-jacketing the character with Complications and similarly dislike being bound by Perks. For me, these things are fluid and can change throughout the course of a campaign. For the most part, I would rather define them in a fashion similar to FATE Aspects and switch them out as the story dictates. Of course, this isn't always appropriate. If something is absolutely essential to the character concept, then I am inclined to make it a more permanent fixture with a point cost/break. 

 

For me, using 6th edition, the sweet spot in points is somewhere between 75-100 with no required Complications to muddy the waters. I would also limit the characters to about three Perks (Favors, Contacts, or even Wealth) with the full disclosure that Favors and Contacts can be killed, Access can be revoked, and Wealth can be seized and taken away, etc. I admit that it does take away from precision accounting of points, but I honestly dislike that aspect of Hero unless it is for powers. Some perks, such as a Familiar, would cost points as that would be integral to the concept of a given character. Complications, if played up, would garner rewards in the form of HAPs or XP. 

 

From that start, Perks and Complications would flow freely as the story dictates. The characters should expect about another 25-30 experience points before their career is over (the campaign ends) though this may actually end up being a larger number if the campaign goes on for a longer than my average period of time.

 

Of course, every once in a while, I like to run a higher powered game. I tend to guide those more towards the "pay points for everything" and start characters out much higher in terms of points. Depending on how powerful, it may top out into superheroic levels of points. That's rare though, as I don't see how characters that are that powerful can evolve. Without that mechanical evolution, I can scratch the narrative itch with a more narrative system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I see a lot of people dont like Deadly Blow and Combat Luck. They work ok for certain builds as long as you keep the power levels in check.

Deadly blow should just be +1 DC per level up to a max of +3DC (+1d6k) and Combat Luck (or whatever) should be limited to +3 resistant defense. That way if it stacks with armor it will not be overwhelming.

Keep bonuses from Talents/Feats low....+1 to +3 in most cases. When they stack with skill levels and situational bonuses, the end result can still be impressive in a Heroic fashion without being overwhelming.

I like Combat Luck, but not in Fabtasy Hero. I use it in genres that don't lend themselves to PC really having any kind of armor or similar protections (such as Pulp Hero). It enables them to (usually) survive the first gun shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Combat Luck, but not in Fabtasy Hero. I use it in genres that don't lend themselves to PC really having any kind of armor or similar protections (such as Pulp Hero). It enables them to (usually) survive the first gun shot.

Agreed generally. I do allow it in fantasy games for characters who don't normally wear armor like priests or wizards. I've also used it with a "Does Not Stack With Armor" Limitation so characters have a little bit of protection if they're caught without armor - really makes the players more likely to take their armor off now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...